DLH calls for better Mepa environmental protection

Astrid Vella

Jan 17th 2010, 20:44

@ Antoine Vella. Far from having no idea about planning, from this below it seems to me that Mr. Tyrell knows far more about Maltese planning procedures than you would like him to!

Antoine Vella

Jan 17th 2010, 17:20

James A. Tyrell
"Doesn't it strike you as wrong that so many case officers reports are simply ignored by Mepa?"

They cannot be ignored by Mepa because they are Mepa. They have sometimes been ignored by the DCC which has, up to now, been made up by part-timers.

The DCC have been the main culprits, so to speak, behind most of the mistaken decisions for which Mepa is criticised and it is this part of the process that needed to be reformed more than others.

To go back to DLHs press release, it's all a question of personal integrity which is what DLH has been saying all along. There have been cases of conflicts of interests and this is why the real essence of the reform is to change certain attitudes of the decision-makers.

The Environment Protection Directorate has been functioning very well as an integral part of Mepa and, if anything, needs to be integrated further rather than pushed away to the periphery of the decision-making process. I understand that this is one of the aims of the recently published law on Mepa reform.

James A. Tyrrell

Jan 17th 2010, 14:20

@Antoine Vella. Antoine you make it sound as if NGO members are a bunch of simpletons who have no idea what they are doing when in fact the reverse is the case. The majority of NGO members are extremely well educated people with qualifications relevant to the areas in which they are concerned. It is an insult to describe these people as 'well-meaning amateurs'.

You state that having more than one body taking decisions would create confusion and lack of accountability. Hello! Isn't this what is already present at Mepa? The way things are at present within Mepa is not working. Do you consider it right for an architect to walk into a Mepa board meeting which is considering an application he has filed, speak to one of the members and then leave the room with him for a private discussion in the car park?

Doesn't it strike you as wrong that so many case officers reports are simply ignored by Mepa? Let Mepa deal with planning which after all is supposed to be their area of expertise and leave the environmental protection issues to people who really care about the future of Malta.

Antoine Vella

Jan 17th 2010, 00:20

James A. Tyrell
As DLH has said and Godwin Cassar confirmed "ultimately it all depends on people taking decisions". No system is perfect but it does not have to be perfect to give satisfactory results.

You cannot have more than one body taking decisions: that would create confusion and lack of accountability. Do you think NGO members do not have friends who might need a favour? I could tell you of supposed NGOs which have become profitable business enterprises for their founders.

Moreover you cannot have well-meaning amateurs running the show because, as Godwin Cassar points out, those taking decision must be trained and know what they are doing.

Antoine Vella

Jan 17th 2010, 00:07

Astrid Vella
"Do you consider that telling someone "Only someone who has no idea about planning could possibly imagine..." is respectful or insulting?"

Neither one nor the other - it's an general opinion. You should stop stirring the pot Astrid; kitchens tend to get rather hot you know and you obviously can't stand that. At any rate you might want to wait for the courts to pronounce themselves before dishing out advice about respect and insults.

Astrid Vella

Jan 16th 2010, 20:40

@ Antoine Vella. Do you consider that telling someone "Only someone who has no idea about planning could possibly imagine..." is respectful or insulting?

Antoine Vella

Jan 16th 2010, 20:15

Astrid Vella

What insults?

Astrid Vella

Jan 16th 2010, 20:01

Well said Godwin Cassar. We are being presented with a positive reform but it will ultimately boil down to the allocation of finances to make it workable, the committment of well-trained MEPA officials and POLITICAL WILL.

MEPA reform cannot go ahead in a vacuum. What are the policies (ie. environmental strategic plan) that are going to drive MEPA's approach. How are the issues of over-development, social impact, touristic projects in ODZ and others going to be tackled?

What about abusive projects that are already in the pipeline like Xemxija, are they going to be allowed to continue to ruin the environment? Remember that these permits are valid for 5 years and renewable for another 5 so that could be 10 years more environmental and heritage destruction.

The Local Plans are not reliable guidelines on this matter as the good policies are often let down by the plans themselves. Where does that leave us?

Godwin Cassar

Jan 16th 2010, 18:24

There are successful models where environmental governance has been integrated with planning like the Netherlands, Sweden and New Zealand. Ultimately it all depends on people taking decisions who must be trained in such matters. We badly need an environmental strategic plan which would incoporate actions across government structures to tackle issues as highlighted in the State of the Environment Report. with proper allocation of finance and human resources for implementation.

Silvan Cutajar

Jan 16th 2010, 16:48

@Antoine Vella
Environment Protection is not a buzz word only to camouflage Planning and make it more appealing to the general public. You are totally wrong when saying that Environment Protection and Planning should go hand in hand. That concept has been proven wrong since the 2003 merger between EPD and PA. This strategic POLITICAL decision failed.
Board members give more weight to Planning issues (although in certain cases compromising even MEPA own Local Plans and core Planning Policy) than Environment Protection issues. With your statement you are certainly confirming what bias you have on this subject and you are not seeing FACTS objectively. The result we have today with MEPA is their for everybody to see ......more contradictions and inconsistent decisions in interpretating existing basic Environment and Planning law by the DCC Boards.
As if MEPA takes any advice from other stakeholders such as the Agriculture Department.
MEPA should stop acting as a God-knows- it-all without taking into account and ACT IN FAVOUR of GENUINE ADVICE from NGOs. John Citizen is fed up with MEPA being strong with the weak and weak with the strong.

James A. Tyrrell

Jan 16th 2010, 16:43

@Antoine Vella. I agree with what you are saying Antoine and that would be the perfect solution in a perfect world. However Mepa has shown in the past that it is far from perfect to the point where the majority of people now see it as corrupt. By taking away the final decision from one body it would greatly reduce the incidence of 'favours for mates’ or worse which prevails today and give the public great confidence in the decision making process.

Astrid Vella

Jan 16th 2010, 16:06

@ Antoine Vella: Civilized blogs are about debate not trading insults. Several EU countries have completely separate environment protection and planning units. So far from not knowing about planning, Mr. Tyrell is simply suggesting a different model that several local experts in the field have stressed could be the best solution to our planning problems.

Is it too much to expect a bit of tolerance for others' opinions, even from you Antoine?

Antoine Vella

Jan 16th 2010, 14:22

Only someone who has no idea about planning could possibly imagine that divorcing environment protection from the planning directorate could be beneficial. Ultimately someone has to take a decision about each application and if the Environment Protection Directorate were separate it would be reduced to just another external stakeholder like the MRA or Agriculture Department. Keeping it an integral part of Mepa puts it in a much stronger position.

As DLH rightly says it is ultimately up to the individual board members to ensure that decisions are taken wisely and in the interest of all. The members of the Environment and Planning Commissions (ex-DCC) will hopefully take greater heed of the recommendations made by the Heritage Advisory Committees and the Environment Protection Directorate.

James A. Tyrrell

Jan 16th 2010, 13:59

I agree totally here with S. Cutajar. It has become very evident that Mepa and Environmental Protection just don't go together. Whilst a lot of what appears in the Mepa Reform Bill is to be welcomed the important thing is how these reforms are implemented.

I have always said that planning and environmental protection should not be housed in the one department. In my opinion Mepa should deal with the planning side of things, ensuring that the application is fully legal. Once they have ironed out any possible problems with the planning side it should then be passed onto a totally separate authority preferably staffed with non-Government employees who would deal with the environmental side of things.

This separate authority could easily be made up of members of the various NGO's who lets face it are doing the job already on a voluntary basis.

S. Cutajar

Jan 16th 2010, 12:40

I do not agree with the concept that the Environment Protection Directorate remains under the MEPA. An independent Environment Protection Agency is long overdue for this country. An effective watchdog on Planning decisions is a must. Recent notorios scandalous decisions and a many more non-publicised far bigger shameful decisions proof this point.
As long as the Environment Protection remains considered as the underdog of the Planning Directorate within MEPA, and in the eyes of the current administration, any further comment is superfluous and grandiose statements and plans will remain cheap talk to impress the man in the street who is not well informed about the real situation behind the MEPA facade where contradictions, piques, personal egoism, superficiality and bizarre injustices reign supreme.

Good luck Dr. Gonzi. Time will tell us if this will be your administration's major effective reform.